I purchased this because I read about a movie being made based on it. Allegedly, it was all about an American hypnotherapist helping Scotland Yard with a serial killer case. Well, that part of the book takes up about ten pages. I know some people enjoy reading just for the words -- sort of like poetry. And there's no doubting that these are good words. However, if you're looking for a story, look elsewhere.

One of the best novels of recent years. Bell's story of an insomniac hypotist is by turns funny, scary, perplexing, intriquing, and almost any other adjective that inspires interest. All of Bell's fiction ranks among the best being written today, but Dr. Sleep and Waiting for the End of the World are especially rich examples of his earlier work.

This hardcover version of The Federalist (papers) comes is a nice package so to speak. The end of the book contains both the Declartion of Indepenence and the Constitution. Unlike most other Federalist papers books which are written as paperbacks using cheap newsprint paper, this uses a higher quality and brighter paper. The nice part about this book, unlike alotof others is that it contains the dates for each paper... alot of reproductions don't have this.

After reading the book however, I became quite concerned
because I noticed immediately that the author (intentionally or unintentionally) changed many of the words in the The Federalist!! This annoys me to no end. It's extremely bad practice for purposes of history, to change words in historical documents, because those "translated" words might accidentally get passed to future generations without aknowledgement that that wasn't what the founding fathers actualy wrote. I noticed at least a dozen changed words... there are probably thousands of errors for all I know.. This is bad, bad, bad.

Heres an example from Federalist Paper #1: (pg. 3)
This book writes: "After a full experience of the insufficiency of the existing federal government, you are invited to deliberate upon a new Constitution for the United States of America..."

Every other book in existence writes: "AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America...."

Notice the subtle, yet immensely importance difference in words.
Now what gives this dumb author the right as a scholarly academian to change the words of our founding fathers. In fact, I don't even know which version is truly correct?? (I assume the majority rules, so this book comes out the loser.)

And these errors continue right through Federalist paper #1, and several others that I noticed... Maybe even all of them!

Also, the author has a nasty habit of decapitalising words which should be capitalized in historical conext. Our founding fathers, as was customary grammar at the time, capitalized many words in the middle of the sentance. I don't fully understand the details of antiquated English, however, when I buy a book on historical figures, I expect, nay, I demand, that the reproduction be produced in exactly the manner in which it was presented by our founding fathers. It can be difficult to understand antiquated English, especially some of the stuff written by James Madison, however, I'd rather do the mental translation myself.

It's a nice book, but I cannot in good conscience give this
anything above 2 stars. In fact, I think it deserves no stars.

NOTE: After researching the matter a little bit, it occurs to me that there are actually two common distinct "translations" and this book presents just one of them.... so I take back blaming the editor. I'm not sure of the origin of these modern translations... but it does seem that this version is much less popular than what is presented in other Federalist Paper repros.
I still claim that this version is error.

This is a very nice edition of the Federalist's Papers. An idea which was inaugurated by James Hamilton to help abate the opposition which was expected toward the newly written constitution.

This Modern Library edition has several features which sets it apart from other editions. First, the editor's introduction (by Robert Scigliano of Boston College) is quite informative and helpful for those who are just getting started in their study and research of American history. And yet it is detailed enough to be informative for those who have a stronger background in American Revolutionary history. Second, the appendices include The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the U.S. along with the amendments. Third, the book has a short but nice bibliography, as well as a nice and very useful index. All these features helped to set this particular edition apart from other editions that I have owned or read.

Of course, the Federalist writings are some of the key writings in American Revolutionary history. Every American should be required to read them since they were written with the intent of promoting the ratification of the constitution. These writings contain the ideas and development of the American system of government, the separation of powers, how congress is to be organized, and the positions of the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government. This work provides its reader with the thoughts, inspirations, and brilliance behind the American Constitution and development of American government.
I highly recommend this edition of the Federalists.

Garret Sheldon's short work opens up a door previously pointed out by Katcham, in which Ketcham specified Madison amongst others believed the Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount,and Romans to be canonical. As most of Madison's personal papers may have been destroyed this work offers an insight not frequently explored, but certainly worthy of consideration.

Sheldon explores an area of Madison's life most just generalize - his early education. Frustrated by the lack of direct Madison writings covering this early period, many authors choose simply to generalize his educational process. Sheldon uses evidence we do have about the people (John Witherspoon) and institutions (College of New Jersey) to help better define what shaped this Founding Father. Very helpful in understanding what motivated Madison - especially the time spent under the strong Calvinist influence of John Witherspoon and the College of New Jersey (Princeton).

Banning's book is a repetative, prolonged and far too lengthy an essay. He imaginatively and masterfully reinteprets Madison's ideas and actions as a member of several deliberative bodies that preceeded and followed the writing and ratification of the Constitution, finding him to be consistent throughout in his views on a central government and the powers of the states. The reading can be somewhat tedious for its redundancies, but worth the effort. Bannings scholarship is impecable, yet the book ought to be only an article in a scholarly journal.

Lance Bannings book is excellent, and long ovedue. History has left us a view of Madison that suggested he was Jefferson's lieutenant, an apostate to his nationilistic views in the 1790's, one view even diminished him to a 'trimmer' of ideas. The average person knows little of the Father of the Constituion, and as Jack Rakove stated at Princeton this February passed, we are learning what Madison always knew. Most views of Madison are not the result of individual study and research, many opinions of Madison arise from previous treatments. Banning began with the exchanges of Madison and found the consistency Madison always claimed. The actual history of Madison reveals an enormously capacious, hard working force behind the Constituion, Bill of Rights,The Federalist Papers, 41 years of public service, and the workings and definition of goverment. Viewed by friend and political foes as, brilliant and ' one adept at committee work and reasoned argument, one who could be depended on to speak and write with precision and force what others could express but vauely and in part.' Banning has surpassed those before him in Madisonian scholarship, by ardously discovering The Real Madison. The attention to detail is excellent, and the scholarship is not self defending just revealing. As Madison's true nature unfolds the consistency is revealed, from lieutenant to an independent thinker, and finally to the proper position of one the key thinkers behind American government. Being one dependent on scholars for my view of history, and granting then occaisonally the keepers of arcanum a merit they do not deserve, it is refreshing to have Lance Bannings contribution not only to Madisonian scholarship, but also to American History. The ongoing efforts by Dave Mattern and the Papers of James Madison have brought enormous information to light in the last few years, and it appears the work of Banning may be the beginning of Madison taking his deserved place in our history and common parlance, a parlance altered by the independent and ardous study this book represents.

Does anyone really read and believe this garbage? This is nothing more than the same old religious wacko Creationist crap... However the author gives the reader all sorts of "quotes" from "evolutionists" to be used against them (read, "inuendos"). This sort of book is truly dangerous because it obviates the need for the reader to actually read other opinions and form some original ones for him/herself (oops, Creationists feel that only men can have opinions...sorry, boys), and thus more followers will blindly be swayed by ever more falsehoods.

This book was not neccessarily designed to be read cover to cover. It can be. Believe me, I know! I couldn't put it down, but then, I'm strange like that. Most people will probably use this book like a reference guide, to point them in the right direction for further research, or as a quick reference for refuting the fact statements that evolutionists will often throw out in leiu of actual evidence. Over all, it was a worthwhile read, and I will use it for years to come. However, my one complaint is that the references are a bit dated in places. To be truly powerful, this book has to be on the cutting edge of science, and while some references are very modern, some are forty or more years old. This is probably out of Dr. Morris's control, since moments of candid honesty from a leading evolutionist are rare.

I THINK I GOT IT THE FIRST TIME - AWESOM

This is unfortunately one of the worst apologetics books on the market. I loose more respect for Morris with each publication like this I come across! What is wrong with this book? ALOT. I can't expose every single error in his reasoning but I can highlight several errors just to drive my point home. Where do we start? Well, let's start with the slightly bad and save the worst for last.

The first blunder is on the reliability of the Old Testament. Morris uses the biblographical test to support the OT's reliability. Okay..nothing wrong with that. But Morris also uses a appeal to authority. One of the authorities? Christ himself! Question-begging, unfortunately, and constructing a circular argument! It only goes downhill from here. Morris has a chapter on biblical prophecy. He goes on to list the course of empires and other civilizations that were subject to biblical prophecy. But Morris doesn't describe in exact details how these prophcies were fulfilled. Morris doesn't give the dating of the prophecies, the dates and places of the fulfillments! How are critical/skeptical readers interested in Christianity suppose to verify the fulfillments!?

Morris also blows it when it comes supposed scientific case for creation. He doesn't try to explain away the traditional case for evolution ( homology, vestigial organs, nested heirachy, fossil record) but instead relies on a bogus argument about the alleged law of biogenesis( kind begats kind that was supposedly demonstrated by Louis Pastuer). He also argues that mutations are extremely rare and harmful and also another argument about the interconnected-ness of genes and characters and implies that mutations cannot cause evolution without some form of saltational change through the whole genome of the organism!

The worst chapter was on the "Fact of God". Here Morris employs a "First Cause" argument that originated with Aristotle and popularized by Thomas Aquanis. Morris argues that the first cause of life must be living and the first cause of love must be loving, etc. There are MANY flaws in this argument. Morris assumes that there is a direct causation (and not a chain of causation).Example: the first cause of life must be living. To argue this is begging the question that there was a first cause for life to begin with and not a chain of causation like a series of chemical reactions to form the first life form over time such as a cell.

Morris also assumes that each effect has the nature of the first cause ( first cause of love must be living) but what if we consider the first cause of the opposites? Is the First Cause of life also the first Cause of death? Does this mean that the First Cause is both living and dead? Is the First Cause of love also the first cause of hate? Why not? Morris also seems to assume that all these first causes are the same identitical identity. But why conclude that? Why do we have to conclude monotheism and not multiple first Causes? And what about the First Cause of unlimited space? How can we infer omnipresence from this? ( Not to mention that it begs the question that space is infinite..especially when we lack a quantum theory of gravity.)

This is just a tip of the iceberg in terms of faulty logic and questionable conclusions. In short, I think the EPA should sue Morris for wasting so much paper in the form of books like this! I would not recommend this book even as to help hold a coffee table up!

Mr. Morris has jump started me many times with this wonderfully referenced work. It's a great book to return to when seeking fact based information on the infallibilty of the Bible. It covers many areas such as prophecy and fulfillment including examples and statistical data, history, astronomy, geology and many other topics. It also contains some good data that clashes with mainline evolution. It clearly is not intended to be in-depth on each topic but is an easy read with an index and references for deeper study in many of the topics.

Other books that deliver mounds of factual evidence showing the absurdity of standard evolutionary beliefs include In Six Days, written by 50 well-accredited scientists (many who are reknowned), Starlight and Time, Search for the Truth, In the Beginning, and Darwin's Black Box.

29 years after it original release this work is still at the "TOP" among "CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE" works, primarily because of it comprehensiveness. It's only short coming, as a prior reviewer mentions, more documentation could have been used (in some cases) in the chapter on fulfilled prophecy. However even here more than enough evidence (at least 7 Historic Prophecys, plus the Messianics) are presented to prove the Authors point. "Mazzaroth" or the constellations (in the Bk of Job), the "GOSPEL IN THE STARS" which is primoral revelation was handled well. It's almost impossible to find someone who knows & "Understands" this Primative truth who doesn't accept it !
Also exceptional in the field of Apologetics "EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT" and Grant Jeffrey's "SIGNATURE OF GOD"... here the advanced medical information presented is "Astonishing". Jeffrey's is excellent for "Apologetics", but should be avoided in "Eschatology"......

"What Is Creation Science?" (1987) by Henry Morris and Gary E. Parker, from the Institute for Creation Research, is intended as an overview of why creation science is more scientific than evolution.

WICS? has two main parts. In the life sciences section, Parker reviews homologies, vestigial organs, the fossil record, and biochemical similarities from the creationist viewpoint, carefully avoiding any inconvenient data, such as the detailed fossil record of reptile-mammal evolution and the detailed sequence of gradually increasing cranial capacity in hominid fossils.

In the physical sciences section, Morris reviews the geologic column, radiometric dating, thermodynamics, and the Big Bang theory. If Parker's section could be characterized as incomplete, Morris' section could be characterized as bizarre. Morris' arguments that the geologic column is based on circular reasoning and that radiometric dating is invalid because it measures only "apparent age," not actual age, are totally delusional.

Regarding Morris' argument that thermodynamics contradicts evolution, the simplest response is that two of the greatest thermodynamicists in history, Ludwig Boltzmann (proposed the atomic theory of gases) and Ilya Prigogine (Nobel prize for work on dissipative structures), were both enthusiastic evolutionists. I'll take Boltzmann and Prigogine over Morris any day!

Morris' statistical arguments are also fatally flawed, being based on his ... belief that evolution is a purely random process. ...

Some specific comments:

1. Even granting that overviews are necessarily superficial, WICS? takes the oversimplifications way too far. Page 1 states there is no scientific evidence that cannot be explained as well by creation, but WICS? maintains that argument only by ignoring voluminous, contrary evidence, ...

2. In addition to glaring omissions, the book also contains numerous inconsistencies. For example, page x states that evolution is based on the atheistic belief that there is no god at all; but page 17 lists 21 separate religions alleged to be structured around evolution. ... This illogical inconsistency is repeated several times throughout the book. (And why a book supposedly intended to show the "scientific" basis for creation science would spend so many pages on religious issues in the first place is a mystery all by itself.)

3. There are many factual errors. On page 16 WICS says that oil deposits are found indiscriminately (i.e., proportionally) in rocks of all ages. ...

4. Even apart from the repeated sermons and religious rants, the book doesn't read like a science book. On the vast majority of issues, instead of discussing specific pieces of evidence, WICS? presents a quote here and a quote there from this or that scientist, as if quotes were a substitute for evidence. ...

5. Even worse, it's obvious that some quotes were deliberately chosen for the purpose of misleading readers. Regarding the evolution of flowering plants, WICS? quotes a botanist lamenting the lack of fossil evidence. But the quote is from 1961! ... Since WICS? was written 20 years after those discoveries, the choice of quotes can only be characterized as dishonest.

6. Ironically, Henry Morris complains frequently and bitterly about how ... evos are always unfairly accusing creationists of using misleading quotes. ...

7. Finally, many important arguments were supported by citations to what turned out to be nothing more than articles published in the popular press, newspaper articles, etc. Apparently Morris and Parker are happy to take their "scientific" support from even the most hopelessly amateurish sources. One citation, for example, was to Melvin Cook's conclusion in 1968 that radiometric dating was unreliable because decay rates were not constant, a conclusion Cook based on his "detailed" comparison of different radioactive isotopes, all the while failing to realize that not all of his samples were in fact radioactive!!! ... And how ... must Henry Morris and Gary Parker be for repeating Cook's error 20 years later?

There were many other errors of similar magnitude, but why beat a dead theory? WICS? was supposed to demonstrate the quality of "scientific" creationism, and indeed I think it does that, but not in the manner that Morris and Parker intended.

Near the close of the twentieth century we have seen a noticeable split between creationist (and I use the term broadly) movements. One, like Dembski and others (confer "Mere Creation"), use more significantly sophisticated and legitimately scientific (even if it is flawed) work to support their case. The other one, stemming from the "scientific creationist" movement of the 1970s and 80s, can be seen in books and writings like those of Henry Morris. Gary Parker, who possesses a Ph.D. in biology, is a notable exception and might be considered a borderline case. I regard this ICR ("Institute of Creation Research") book as one of the three major creationist books (the other two are "The Genesis Flood" and "Scientific Creationism," which will be referred to as SC for sake of abbreviation). For sake of abbreviation, I will refer to "What is Creation Science?" as WICS. The book could be considered a sort of sequel to the earlier ICR book, SC.

People, even many well-intention scientists, often misconstrue creation science as the idea of a Supreme Being creating the universe as literally described in the book of Genesis. Yet creation science (as presented by the authors of WICS) neither mentions Scripture nor theology. Creation science on the biological scale is the theory that life was created artificially (p. 34). This is also called "intelligent design theory" by other authors and scientists. Creation science as applied to cosmology is the theory that the universe is not a completely isolated system (pp. x, 9, 190). Thus the theory suggests that the universe was an open system for it to be created.

In part because of how "creation science" is defined, one of the improvements made is that WICS has a much less religious appearance. Scripture seemed to be more of an inspiration and a motivation behind SC. WICS made almost no inept religious intervention (unless one believes the theories defined to be inherently religious). Parker especially did an excellent job of not referring to religious principles when describing and making the case for creation science.

Part II, written by Parker, was called "The Life Sciences," and contains the most legitimate science in the book. By far the largest improvement has been in biology when one contrasts WICS to SC. There are several reasons for this. First of all, Parker has a Ph.D. in biology and has taught evolutionary biology at the university level (pp. vii, 31-32). The Ed.D. has clearly made him well qualified to speak on the subject. Second, he was once a former evolutionist (p. 32) and he was an evolutionist because he thought the scientific evidence favored that theory (p. 182). He displays the most rational approach I have seen for a creationist biologist who is affiliated with ICR. Even if his arguments are not considered good enough (and that, of course, is debatable), they clearly exhibit a higher level of scientific sophistication than what one sees in some other creationist works.

Regardless of its scientific merit, there still some relatively minor flaws, which I hope will be fixed in a later edition. On page one, "evolution" is misspelled as "evoluion." One mistake by Parker is that the story of the peppered moths is given the award of being THE showcase for evolution (p. 81), and then later the exact same award is given to the bird-like Archaeopteryx specimen (p.135).

In sum, WICS is a fairly good book on the contemporary lower-tier creationist position. Although I do not believe it has reached the embodiment of pure science, these two authors present a case for creation science that deserves consideration by the open-minded individual interested in this controversy. It seems doubtful, as Parker suggests, that the evidence is all one-sided in favor of either theory.

I received this book as a gift a few years ago. At the time I had no idea what Creation Science was or how it stacked up with Evolution on a scientific basis. I had spent my entire life learning about evolution in public schools. Learning isn't an accurate statement. I memorized what they told me, got the A, and moved on without thinking about it. Dr. Morris and Dr. Parker did a great job of showing me the scientific fallacy behind evolution. After reading this book and thinking about the evidence behind both sides, I found the assumptions behind Evolution to be preposterous. In fact, Evolution is such a stretch, it should not be taught in our public schools. Unfortunately, you can't prove, by scientific definitions, either case. Creation Science, however, is a much more comprehensive, methodical, and logical approach. Oh, by the way, I'm a Mechanical Engineer and fully grasp scientific theory and reasoning, formation and testing of hypotheses, and rational and object analysis. But don't take my word for it, read it yourself.

Robert James Waller's "A Thousand Country Roads" is NOT a continuation of "Bridges of Madison County" as some readers thought but actually deals with the in-between, after Kincaid left Iowa and before he died. During this time, he met up with a son he thought didn't exist and it shows how close both Kincaid and Francesca at meeting each other. Also, I am amazed that some readers wanted to know if they were going to meet even though it said clearly in "Bridges of Madision County" that they would not meet.

The author's writing skills is great and very personal. The book is short but especially intense and deep. Waller has the ability to bring and draw his readers into the story and just mesmerize his readers. Some might not like this book or feel dissatisfied because the ending is not what they want even though the ending was already determined in the previous book. I do agree that Waller should not dwell on the Kincaid past quite that much. However, I still think this is still a great story. I also highly recommend that the readers should read "Bridges of Madison County" first in order to understand better the story.

.
...On The Road & Travels with Highway and Harry

It is now 1981 - Robert Kincaid is 68. He still has his old truck, Harry, and has a golden retreiver named Highway. Francesca is 60. It has been 16 years since their previous encounter.
I confess, I never read the first book, The Bridges of Madison County, (I'm gonna call that Bridges I,) but I cherish the beautiful Streep/Eastwood movie, and I went and read the excerpts of Bridges I here on A.c while reading A Thousand Country Roads (I'm gonna call it Bridges II.) Obviously, author Robert Waller is "stuck" within the parameters of Bridges I while writing Bridges II, so, ja, sorry, there is going to be no "and- they-lived-happily-ever-after-together Ending." But it is a good tale, well-told, nonetheless.

Now, a Note to Hollywood: Bring `it back! But it better be the perfectly-cast Streep and Eastwood again! Thank you.

It has been a long time since we've heard these all-too familiar names: Francesca Johnson and Robert Kincaid. A decade ago, it was impossible to enter a movie theatre or abookstore without being bombarded with images of the world's all-time bestselling hardcover novel: The Bridges of Madison County. Now, we hear those names again...

A Thousand Country Roads is aptly described on the book jacket as an epilogue to Bridges. It is exactly that. This new book shows us some of the inbetween spaces in the lives of Robert and Francesca. A Thousand Country Roads aims to answer some questions about what happened to the two lovers after their affair at Roseman Bridge. What it does, and does well, is give us more insight into how the events in Bridges affected both Francesca and Robert and how they deal with it. Interestingly, for both people, a nostalgic journey is in the works.

Adding some excellent new characters and a few very clever twists, Robert Waller has recreated a lot of the magic of Bridges in this new tale. Readers who loved Bridges will anxiously follow the paths of Robert and Francesca as they explore what happened over those stolen four days, and examine what their lives have become Because of its nature though (it is an epilogue), it is certainly not going to be enjoyed by anyone who hasn't already read Bridges of Maisdon County.

The magic of Bridges is sustained in A Thousand Country Roads, and, a decade later, Robert Waller is back on the map. An execllent way to complete the picture for anyone who read and loved The Bridges of Madison County.

Duane Gish isn't content to claim that the Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old. That claim alone is faulty theology - the Bible is chock full of references that state the Earth is extremely old (e.g., Hab. 3:6b), and the book of Genesis merely states that God created the world "in the beginning," without the Ussherite timetable Gish insists upon...

Gish - along with other Young Earthers - have confused the church of Christ for too long. The Bible doesn't teach that the Earth is 6,000 years old - Seventh Day Adventists teach that, and they're hardly reliable theologians. There is a marvelous resonance between what science now believes about the Big Bang, the nature of time, and other issues and what is taught in the Bible. As Christians, we should be rejoicing at the way in which modern science has, despite all attempts to the contrary, run smack-dab up against God in its equations. Physics, cosmology, astronomy, and other fields have all been shaken to the core by what they've found. The only reason Darwinian Evolution remains unscathed is because Darwinists use people like Duane Gish as red herrings to make it appear that all anti-Darwinists are Young Earthers who shouldn't be listened to.

Read Hugh Ross, Michael Denton, David Berlinski, and Michael Behe for more sound scientific analysis on these matters... Leave Young Earth Creationism for the sub-Biblical cults, where it belongs!

Creationists are fortunate to have such a highly qualified scientist as Dr Gish on our side. Even the famous evolutionary origin-of-life researcher and opponent of Gish, the late Dr Sydney Fox conceded:

'Duane Gish has very strong scientific credentials. As a biochemist, he has synthesised peptides, compounds intermediate between amino acids and proteins. He has been co-author of a number of outstanding publications in peptide chemistry.' [_The Emergence of Life: Darwinian Evolution from the Inside_, Basic Books, NY, 1988, p. 46]

This gives the lie to sceptical claims that no creationist has ever published in scientific journals, and there are many more. And it means that Gish is extremely well-qualified to discuss theories of the origin of life from non-living chemicals. But he is also widely read in many other fields.

The style is lucid, and the book is beautifully illustrated. This makes this book a good introduction, mainly for young people but good for all ages.

The book is about the biblical view of creation, get a clue! If you want to read about evolution, get a book on evolution! This is a excellent resource for homeschoolers and others who want to teach the creationists view of creation to their children. If you don't believe in the billions and billions of years thing, then this book gives a wonderful review of God's 7 day plan. The book is excellent even if you disagree with the thinking. It's a shame unethical people use a book review as a platform to promote their bias thinking.